What kind of world leader would instruct the international community to engage with Hamas, even though it just committed an armed insurrection against the Palestinian Authority? Who among the world's experts would argue that the coup d'etat legitimized their claim to speak for the Palestinian people? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Bashar Assad?

The United States, Israel and the European Union must end their policy of favoring Fatah over Hamas, or they will doom the Palestinian people to deepening conflict between the rival movements, former US President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday.

Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who was addressing a conference of Irish human rights officials, said the Bush administration's refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas was "criminal."

Carter said Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

Hamas fighters routed Fatah in their violent takeover of the Gaza Strip last week. The split prompted Abbas to dissolve the power-sharing government with his rivals in Hamas and set up a Fatah-led administration to govern the West Bank.

So let's get this straight. Bush's refusal to engage with a terrorist group -- one that has long been on the State Department list of outlawed terrorist organizations -- is "criminal". Wouldn't it literally have been a criminal act to engage with Hamas? Federal law prohibits such direct contacts and the transmission of aid to terrorist groups such as Hamas.

Even more ridiculous, Carter feels that we should applaud the organizational skills of a terrorist group that just murdered its way to the top of the Gaza power structure. He applauds their "superior skills and discipline," while turning a blind eye to the ways in which they apply them. Rather than scold them for using violence to achieve their political goals, Carter wants the global community to welcome and reward them for it.

Carter started his post-presidential period as a model for retired politicians and statesmen. Had he stayed retired and focused on building homes for the poor, he would have gone some way towards mitigating his feckless presidency. Instead, Carter has become an apologist for terrorists -- and in this case, a cheerleader for them. Carter has embarrassed his nation and solidified his status as the appeaser-in-chief who coddled radical Islam at its birth, and seems determined to midwife it at every successive turn.

Hundreds of terrified Gazans fleeing Hamas rule were trapped at a main crossing with Israel on Tuesday, hoping to gain permission to pass through Israeli territory to sanctuary in the West Bank.

Fearing death or persecution, Gazans flocked to the Erez passage after Hamas militants wrested control of the coastal strip from Fatah security forces last week. Israel, which has no interest in letting masses of Gazans pass through its territory and possibly destabilize the quieter West Bank, has refused to let most of them in, saying their lives were not in danger. ...

On Monday, gunmen allied with Hamas disguised themselves as fleeing civilians and hurled hand grenades at Israeli soldiers and Palestinians at Erez, killing a relative of a slain Fatah warlord, and injuring 15 other Palestinians.

But they organized the attack so well! They showed superior skills and discipline in murdering civilians and engaging in terrorism! Jimmy Carter must have been so proud ...

UPDATE II: Michelle Malkin has a roundup, called Jimmy Carter Said What? Part 999, which puts it neatly in perspective. John Hinderaker loves the notion that the US has been "criminal" for its refusal to fund a terrorist group, but Carter can't bring himself to mention the real crimes of Hamas.

TrackBack

» Carterpalooza--It's "Criminal" from Ed Driscoll.com
In one of his many Orwellian moments, AP reports Jimmy Carter saying that the Bush administration's refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas was "criminal." Ed Morrissey responds:So let's get this straight. Bush's refusal to engage with a... [Read More]

» Jimmy Carter hits new low, digs from Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
I've got to hand it to our worst president and ex-president: just when I think he couldn't become any more of a pathetic, dictator-coddling, appeasement-craving old fool, he finds yet another way to kiss up to thugs and terrorists: The [Read More]

» Jimmy Carter: Gotta Love Those Terrorists. Or Else. from GINA COBB
Jimmy Carter is back in the news, arguing that the world community should embrace Hamas, even though it just engaged in a bloody insurrection against its own Palestinian leadership and remains committed to the destruction of Israel as well. Ed Morrisse... [Read More]

» Can We Agree That Carter Is Irrelevant Already? from The Gun Toting Liberal™
Former president of the United States. Nobel Peace Price laureate. Human rights campaigner. These are the titles that Jimmy Carter can lay claim to. As of yesterday Pres. Carter can add another title to his list:
Terrorist sympathizer.
Yep, I went ... [Read More]

» Abbas Calls Hamas "Murderous Terrorists" from Webloggin
I know that Abbas is known to be a moderate and has also been known to attempt to negotiate peace with the West, Israel, and Palestine. But I can’t help but ask myself if it is truly possible to have a moderate that is affiliated with radical Isl... [Read More]

Cap'n Ed : So let's get this straight. Bush's refusal to engage with a terrorist group -- one that has long been on the State Department list of outlawed terrorist organizations -- is "criminal". Wouldn't it literally have been a criminal act to engage with Hamas? Federal law prohibits such direct contacts and the transmission of aid to terrorist groups such as Hamas.

Is it possible that a policy of engagement with Hamas would involve taking them off the State Department list of terrorist groups?

Monkei, all kinds of evil foreign governments have been duly "elected" by their peoples. Doesn't make them any less evil.

James, taking Hamas off the State Department list of terrorist groups would require Hamas to foreswear terrorist activity first. They have had the opportunity to do so and have failed to do so. You're putting the cart before the horse. When a group stops behaving as a terrorist group, then we can deal with them. Not until.

In this country doesn't "voting" count for anything? Should this government support the will of that party which was legally "elected" into power? Who was that again?

Posted by: Monkei at June 19, 2007 11:16 AM

....and ONCE again, the Leftist, Anti-American, Pro-Jihadi Buffoon, comes in with comment that shows why Leftists should just go sulk in a corner somewhere, and not attempt to infect normal people with their filth..

In this country doesn't "voting" count for anything? Should this government support the will of that party which was legally "elected" into power? Who was that again?

Posted by: Monkei at June 19, 2007 11:16 AM

....and ONCE again, the Leftist, Anti-American, Pro-Jihadi Buffoon, comes in with comment that shows why Leftists should just go sulk in a corner somewhere, and not attempt to infect normal people with their filth..

Is it possible that a policy of engagement with Hamas would involve taking them off the State Department list of terrorist groups?

Sure, but consider the ramifications of such a move. No one is arguing, I think, that Hamas doesn't engage in terrorist practices-- its obvious that they do, and thus to take them off of the list of terrorist groups, while perhaps technically legal, doesn't solve the problem at all-- Hamas is, after all, on that list for a reason, and although political expediency might seem to suggest that any easy way to engage with Hamas diplomatically would be to simply remove them from the list, it does nothing to change their nature as an organization that continually engages in terrorist practices-- which they no doubt would continue to do while the erstwhile "partner in peace" with the United States.

The refusal of the United States to deal with Hamas even after they were elected was predictable and correct-- consider that, although there was much uproar over the decision to refuse to deal with a democratically elected government, the reasons for doing so remained precisely what they were before Hamas was elected-- namely, that the group engages in widespread (and, I might add illegal) actions against deliberately non-military targets-- and yet Carter has the utter gall to suggest that using this a a justification for not talking openly is "illegal"?

Between two democratic governments, I'll take the one that doesn't engage with political organizations that exist (at least in part) to slaughter non-combatants en masse rather than those organizations themselves-- especially after Hamas has effectively stolen the rest of the election, not by fraud, but with the barrel of a gun.

The government should be responsible to its people through free and fair elections, supporting the rule of the people by the people for the people. The people should ensure that it is a rule of law and morality.

The government is responsibe to the people, and the people in turn (in taking over the historical place of royalty, who ruled by divine right), are responsible to a Higher Authority -- call the Higher Authority morality if you like.

Clyde: When a group stops behaving as a terrorist group, then we can deal with them.

That's a policy question. I don't have any quarrels with it, but to argue, as the Captain did, that policy cannot and should not be changed simply because existing executive orders would have to be changed ... well, the logic is a little suspect!

In other words, free and fair elections (if that's indeed what the Palestinians had) are no blank check to a people to wreak whatever havoc they please. They can elect Hamas, and we can tell them where to get off. They can learn the lessons of freedom and responsibility for their choices.

james asks: Is it possible that a policy of engagement with Hamas would involve taking them off the State Department list of terrorist groups?

It is also possible , and more likely probable that if you reward Hamas in such a way there will be plenty of other groups that will use indicriminate violence as a 'bargaining chip'(not that there is shortage of such now). Of course, they will be the media's darlings, painted as the underdog, worthy of sympathy and support.

I think the Cap'n could well have bolded another section of quote in the update...

Israel, which has no interest in letting masses of Gazans pass through its territory and possibly destabilize the quieter West Bank, has refused to let most of them in, saying their lives were not in danger. ...

... and pointed out that the civilians were attacked in short order, under the eyes of the people that current US policy champions.

But why is he so hopelessly blind to the actions of Fatah? I can't stand Carter or Hamas, but how on Earth can we justify providing money (80 million) to pay for security for Fatah?? They're terrorists for cripes sikes.

Let's see here, the Nazis were duly and properly elected - never mind that they behaved like gangsters afterward - and they were certainly better organized than the Norwegians, the Poles, the Czechs, or - alors! - ze French.

So, Mr Carter, why on Earth would we consider supporting that madman Churchill and his imperial cabal?

Where does this fantasy come from that somehow if a government is elected it's somehow saintly, and in the interests of the West to lick their boots?

Sorry, dreamers, but if a people - for whatever reason - elects a government with policies clearly hostile to our interests it's entirely appropriate for us to respond in kind.

I love it!!! It is isreal's and the U.S.'s fault Hamas murdered Palestinians in cold blood. Because Isreal wouldn't let them into their country without checks, the guilt for Hamas' actions is on.......Bush's hands.

This is incredible logic. Thank you Monkei and Mr. Hymas for showing the pure hatred that motivates you.

Once again, when do we get to start questioning the patriotism of people who are suggesting we take actions that are A) illegal, B) immoral and C) against the best interest of the national security of the United States?

Jimmy Carter's credibility on Middle East negotiations is roughly equal to that of the ostrich on matters of round-the-world flight.

In a sense, Carter does provide a simple road map to what Bush should be doing: whatever the exact and total opposite of what the worst President of the 20th century says should be what the Presidents of the 21st Century should strive to accomplish.

James Hymas: The political cost of attempting to reclassify Hamas is far too high. The President and the Congress just got their collective rear ends handed to them over the immigration-bill fiasco. That's nothing compared to what would happen if State tried to normalize relations with Hamas.

As for the civilians who were attacked at the closed border crossing: (1) They voted for their attackers, so I'm a bit lacking in sympathy. Choices have consequences, and the Palis have for far, far too long been shielded from the consequences of their choices. (2) The fact that Hamas is willing too insert armed insurgents into a refugee stream (something I predicted on Wizbang last week) demonstrates exactly why Israel is wise to not open the crossing.

Interesting. My local garbage wrapper, Toledo Blade, has the same editorial out today. Is this the new marching orders for the left, "Negotiate with Hamas, never mind their repeated stated goal of Israel's destruction"?

Interesting. My local garbage wrapper, Toledo Blade, has the same editorial out today. Is this the new marching orders for the left, "Negotiate with Hamas, never mind their repeated stated goal of Israel's destruction"?

Cousin Dave: Keep Hamas on the list, take them off the list ... it's a policy decision. If it's to be discussed, let's at least discuss it logically, that's all I ask for.

As for the civilians who were attacked at the closed border crossing: (1) They voted for their attackers

They did? Every single one of them? Out of their own free will, with no coercion or other monkey-business? Even the kids? Your information is better than mine, obviously.

The fact that Hamas is willing too insert armed insurgents into a refugee stream (something I predicted on Wizbang last week) demonstrates exactly why Israel is wise to not open the crossing.

Searches at the borders are pretty routine at this point - surely you've seen the pictures taken at the border crossings with the guys lifting their shirts up to show there's no explosive belt underneath.

"They did? Every single one of them? Out of their own free will, with no coercion or other monkey-business? Even the kids? Your information is better than mine, obviously. "

Riiiight. So, according to Jimmy, we need to recognize Hamas because they were freely elected. And you defend Jimmy's point by saying that those votes were likely coerced. Cognitive dissonance much? Just damn.

I love it!!! It is isreal's and the U.S.'s fault Hamas murdered Palestinians in cold blood. Because Isreal wouldn't let them into their country without checks, the guilt for Hamas' actions is on.......Bush's hands.

This is incredible logic. Thank you Monkei and Mr. Hymas for showing the pure hatred that motivates you.

Last I saw, the party elected into "power" was the Republicans. Check the party of the Commander In Chief of the United States of America.

Hymas,

There's a reason Hamas in on the terror list, isn't there? Don't they attack civilians, as the Captain so adroitly pointed out? Don't they use civilians as cover for attacks, as we just saw as well? Why should the Israelis allow anyone from Gaza into Israel? Note also that Gaza has a border with Egypt. Why isn't Egypt allowing them out?

Hamas didn't come to power in a palace coup -- the Palestinians freely elected them into power. They knew what Hamas was about -- and they approved by electing them. They now have to live with the government they have created, just as the Germans did during WWII.

Karma works, plain and simple. What goes around comes around. Sometimes the really evil things take a little longer to be rectfied but when it happens, it is often epic. Other famous freely elected leaders include Saddam, Big and Little Kim, Chavez, Carter----we had to live with the consequences of our collective stupidity now it is time for the Palis.

unclesmrgol: Those are indeed better reasons for keeping Hamas on the list than offered by the Cap'n.

"Freely elected"? The average Palestinian - one not paid by foreigners to run around with Kalashnikovs, I mean - had a choice between two unpalatable alternatives, as far as I can tell. But if blaming the victims makes you feel morally superior, you've got lots of company.

James: The "average Palistinian" overwhelmingly supported the party whose #1 campaign point (indeed, nearly their only campaign point) was the extermination of Israel. I don't know how much plainer it could be. And those "women and children"? They're either willing suicide bombers, human shields, or men hiding in burkas. Anyone with any sense at all left Gaza a long time ago. The ones who are left are the ones who supported the indiscriminate killing of Jews, and now want to avoid the consequences of that choice.

In a "brilliant" manuever, the Saud's so to it that their evil religion got named with enough confusion that most people don't recognize if for what it is. RADICAL ISLAM = SAUD's.

Amazing disguises. Things you can do with checkered tablecloths. And, positions on the map.

But the winners in gazoo? Religious freaks. Willing to DIE. While all Fart'ah has are blokes who get jobs off of lists. NOT LOOKING TO DIE!

Oh, they lost.

While Bush is still the Realtor for the Sauds.

We've got 18 months of this nonsense left. And, it's really like watching foot dragging. Or worse. A piece of chalk screaming across the blackboard.

Don't forget that Condi instructed Lt. General Keith Dayton to see to it that $60-million in American armaments went into Gazoo. Didn't even have to be dragged in through the tunnels.

Olmert has no ability to stop American military hardward from reaching gazoo. He can't stop the crap that gets dragged thru the tunnels, from eygpt, either. Though I'd guess it's really the stock and trade of smugglers. And, their hallucinagens.

But what's Dayton's excuse?

One thing about Olmert's trip. It means James Baker finally figured out that Olmert IS Israel's prime minister. Because? When Arik first stroked, Condi called Olmert and said there were new "rules." No longer would there be a phone from the prime minister's office to Bush. Everything had to go through State.

So Olmert just took the humiliation. Just like he took Winograd's.

As Arik Sharon said: In Israel, politics is carried out on a merry-go-round. IF you don't get off? Your star will shine, again. And, you'll get elected back into the driver's seats of office.

Now, what really had and has James Baker on a tear! Is that in the early 1990's, to show how much he hated James Baker, Arik would drop in another settlement on the West Bank. This is how those areas grew to have more Jews. Among the arabs.

It's a ticklish situation, because Israel is stuffed with arabs, anyway. Every 5th person you meet in Israel is an arab WITH citizenship. (While the group called the palestinians, have no citizenship rights whatsoever, be they in eygpt. jordan. syria. Or lebanon. In Irak? The one's Saddam imported have been tossed out.

What will hamas do with all the goodies Dayton put there for Fart'ah? How should I know? I don't guess on events in the future.

But I do notice that Olmert picked Barak. And, this tightens up the Defense ministry. And, professionals are not gonna signal ya, in advance, what their options on.

Oh. Most of those turkeys in gazoo are not religious fanatics. Even if they dress in the cleanest clothes; as you see in photo ops. And, pose. Gazoo, it seems has a wardrobe department. You show up there, before you go out into the streets. And, pose. Just up Reuter's alley.

jimmy carter's hate for america started very slowly at first as it was originally directed at reagan. as history continued to demean him during those eight years of the reagan presidency it became all too much. smoldering, it turned to hate for america in general. he violated every rule of decorum for presidential behavior while his pathetic supporters cheered him on. it got so that even clinton couldn't stand him.

now after so many salutations for murdering thugs worldwide carter himself has turned into one(thug). he is pure hate parading as a sympathetic creature. he is now, and secretly always was, a repugnant little man of no consequence.

as mark twain so famously quipped about a funeral he couldn't attend, "while i'm sorry i"ll miss it, i approve of the proceedings".

Two-state solution, finally. Gaza is the first fully functional "palestinian" state. Totally Juden-free, just as the world community required. Well, I think it's weird to demand Israel to accomodate the Arabs from Gaza now - after all, they are on their own. Fair is fair.

You say that Hamas does this, and they are therefore terrorists and should be on the US terrorist list and not be allowed to participate in elections. Do you think the US should be consistent with this policy? Do you think that any group that uses human shields should be on the US terrorist list and not be allowed to run a government?

You say that Hamas does this, and they are therefore terrorists and should be on the US terrorist list and not be allowed to participate in elections.

No one said this. Hamas is free to run for election all the live-long day. If the Palis choose to elect a group of genocidal butchers like Hamas, however, we aren't required to approve. This isn't all that terribly complicated, but a certain bloc of posters here seems to be struggling mightily with the concept.

Do you think that any group that uses human shields should be on the US terrorist list and not be allowed to run a government?

Your statement suggests the impending arrival of some "gotcha" exposing a close ally of the United States that uses human shields and engages in state-sponsored terrorism in the manner of Hamas and Fatah. Good luck with that.

Secondly and to reiterate, the whole "not allowed to run a government" thing is tedious in its cluelessness about foreign policy and a nation's exclusive purpose for it (to pursue its own best interests), especially when it comes to the bloodthirsty barbarians in "Palestine". Hamas can run a government. Hamas can even be democratically elected to run a government. But the United States is not required to send foreign aid to said government or even have diplomatic relations with it if doing so is not deemed in the best interests of the United States. Again, not terribly complicated.

And, frankly, only someone whose moral compass is as irreparably damaged as Jimmy Carter's would suggest that working hand-in-hand with a group as anti-American and fundamentally evil as Hamas is somehow in our best interests.

That's a policy question. I don't have any quarrels with it, but to argue, as the Captain did, that policy cannot and should not be changed simply because existing executive orders would have to be changed ... well, the logic is a little suspect!

Posted by: James I. Hymas at June 19, 2007 12:00 PM

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Not NEARLY as suspect as dealing with a terrorist organization that drags dissidents behind a car for several hours, just because the Democrat Socialists are satisfied that their election into power was "legal" and "above board".

I think the Cap'n could well have bolded another section of quote in the update...

Israel, which has no interest in letting masses of Gazans pass through its territory and possibly destabilize the quieter West Bank, has refused to let most of them in, saying their lives were not in danger. ...

... and pointed out that the civilians were attacked in short order, under the eyes of the people that current US policy champions.

True. We don’t have to approve. And we are free to withhold aid. Actions such as this, however, only make Hamas stronger. Hamas owes their immense popularity today to actions like this from USrael over the past 20 years. Most Israelis were happy to see Hamas entering the political arena, because they knew that it would help to stop their attacks. Once Hamas is forced out of politics, they will return to violence and suicide attacks as their only route to resisting occupation. This, or course, is what the Israeli government wants. Peace would mean that Israel would have to define its borders, which they never want to do. Constant war means constant opportunities to acquire land. It worked for a long time, but the balance of power is shifting. It’s not 1967 ant more. The IDF has spent too much time shooting at children throwing rocks, and now when they face real fighters, they get their asses kicked. (A few thousand Hezbollah fighters did the job beautifully). Constant aggression from USrael will only backfire, and Carter knows this. His comments stem from thinking about US interests, not the interests of Palestinians or Hamas.

“Your statement suggests the impending arrival of some "gotcha" exposing a close ally of the United States that uses human shields…”

Your right. It’s Israel. If the US is going to oppose Hamas, why not just say that the reason is because Hamas opposes Israel, who is our ally. Making up this crap about human shields and killing civilians really sounds silly when Israel (and many other US allies, and the US itself) are doing the same things much more efficiently.

I can only say that if Uncle Wolf did not make to fight two fronts now the problem of Hamas,Palestinian,sionism would not be!
Unfortunately his strategy was completely wrong therefore nowadays we have the giant imperialist U.S.A. dominating the world and,unfortunately,only the islam and the arabic people can destroy the american ideology!

About

Captain Ed is a father and grandfather living in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota, a native Californian who moved to the North Star State because of the weather. He lives with his wife Marcia, also known as the First Mate, their two dogs, and frequently watch their granddaughter Kayla, whom Captain Ed calls The Little Admiral.

My Other Blog

The Crows Nest

Rule 1: Drag The Corpse On Over First

If I've learned anything in four years of blogging, don't try to be out in front of the death rumors, especially with the villains of the world. Saddam died a hundred deaths before we caught him alive in his spider hole, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi almost as many before his demise last year. Osama may or may not be alive, but everyone's avoided speculating on his fate for a while now. Maybe Val at Babalu Blog will get luckier with his "Castro Is Dead" story. We all hope so. I'll wait for the announcement ....

Hobbs Choice

Volunteer Voters is holding its annual "Best of Nashville" on-line polls, and one of the categories is for the best political writer. Our friend Bill Hobbs, now posting at Newsbusters, and he'd like his on-line fans to cast their votes. Drop by and put one in for Bill if you get a chance!

Murtha Getting Backlogged On Apologies

Gary Gross of Let Freedom Ring sees another case collapsing on the Haditha charges. He's called for Murtha to apologize earlier, and adds another reason to the tally.

No Such Thing As 'Moderate' Islam?

Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan told a television interviewer that he finds the label "moderate Islam" offensive. Shrink Wrapped has a lot more on this, but at least in the same interview Erdogan acknowledged that "radical Islam" exists, and that it's been a catastrophe. Be sure to read the whole post.

MS-NBC Gets Punk'd

Power Line has a great post on a lack of journalistic effort on the part of MS-NBC. In covering the Michael Vick story, they reported on what they thought was Al Sharpton's website proclaiming Vick's innocence. I guess Alex Johnson and two other MS-NBC reporters couldn't bother to read the title bar of the site, which proudly proclaims it as a "parody site".

New Instapundit Podcast On Pharmaceuticals

I just caught this e-mail from Glenn Reynolds about his new podcast with Richard Epstein, the author of Overdose: How Excessive Government Regulation Stifles Pharmaceutical Innovation. Haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but the topic is important enough to make sure I carve out time for it tomorrow. Get their first and tell me what I'm missing ....

Fed Trying A 'Stealth Easing'?

The Federal Reserve seems to have conducted a quiet campaign to steady markets that started spinning out of control, according to King Banaian at SCSU Scholars. He thinks that the Fed has conducted a "stealth easing". Be sure to read his explanation and follow his lnks.

A Shameless Bit Of Sel-Promotion

Gateway Pundit and Val at Babalu Blog note a crass PR move by Hugo Chavez. Venezuela has responded to Peru's eathquake disaster with food shipments -- and with Hugo's smiling picture on the cans. He also uses the tuna-can label to undermine President Garcia of Peru, who narrowly defeated Chavez' pal Ollanto Humalla, whom the labels extol for his "solidarity" with Chavez.

Tacky beyond belief.

Bush Going After Palestinian Terror Financing?

George Bush's new orders to USAID forces them to review the executive management of all NGOs to ensure that they have no terrorist connections. Carl in Jerusalem says at Israel Matzav that the order specifically intends to target Palestinian front groups for terrorists. Let's hope he's right.

Slow Start!

Yes, I'm off to a slow start today, thanks to some scripting issues, a bad back, and an alarm clock that needs replacing. Bear with me -- I'm ramping up, I promise...

And Now, In Little League Action Last Night ...

I once played in a Little League game where we lost, 30-1, obviously before mercy rules came into being. The only comfort during that shellacking was that 13-year-olds don't have to justify their salaries for being on the field. You have to wonder what the Baltimore Orioles have to feel without that caveat today, after losing 30-3 to the Texas Rangers. Sixteen of the runs came in the last two innings .... (via TMV)

Bush Speech On Iraq

I got a couple of e-mails wondering why I haven't linked to George Bush's speech today. I liked it; I just didn't have much to add. Rush Limbaugh covered it well on his site, and Power Line also links approvingly but has nothing much more to say. Michael Goldfarb notes that the Weekly Standard had made a similar argument regarding Vietnam a year ago.

Rove Fears Me -- No, Really!

Hot Air notes the latest fundraising letter from John Edwards. No longer content to indulge his paranoia when Ann Coulter mentions him, now he wants to indulge it when Karl Rove doesn't. Has any candidate seemed this desperate before now?

Racism Or Hard Truth?

Angela Winters looks at an editorial cartoon and the controvery it has caused in Jacksonville, Florida, especially in the black community. Truth or racism? When rap artists tell young listeners not to cooperate with the police, how much responsibility do they have for the victimization that follows? Read all of the essay at The Moderate Voice.

Support Citizen Journalism

Bill Ardolino at INDC Journal reminds us that there is a reporter shortage on the front lines. The best way to solve that problem? Donate to Public Multimedia, the citizen-journalist organization that supports Bill Roggio, Bill Ardolino, and others. (And a direct donation to Michael Yon would be much appreciated as well.)

Archives

Subscription

Search

Blogroll

Captain's Quarters features an authoritative blogroll, listing many websites that feature the top political thinking on the Internet. In order to make the list easire to navigate, it has been divided into a number of sections.